Senit v.

People
GR No. 192914 (11 January 2016)
Reyes J., TitaK
SUBJECT MATTER: Trial; New Trial
CASE SUMMARY:
Senit charged with Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Multiple Serious Physical Injuries and Damage to Property. Upon
arraignment, he pleaded guilty. However, he transferred residence and his whereabouts became unknown so he was
not presented as a witness by his new counsel. Thus, RTC rendered its Decision in Absentia convicting Senit of the
crime charged. Senit filed a motion for new trial on the ground that errors of law or irregularities have been committed
during trial which prejudiced his substantial rights. He claimed that he was not abel to present evidence during trial
because he was not notified of the schedule. The motion for new trial was denied. CA affirmed RTC decision. On WON
RTC and CA erred in denying the motion for new trial to allow Senit to present evidence on his behalf, the SC ruled in
the negative. The SC ruled that a new trial may not be opened on the basis of evidence which was available during trial
but was not presented due to its negligence. Here, Senit was given the opportunity to be heard and to present
evidence to substantiate his defense, but he forfeited this right, through his own negligence, by not informing his
counsel of his whereabouts and not appearing in court at the scheduled hearings
DOCTRINES:
A motion for new trial based on newly-discovered evidence may be granted only if the following requisites are met:
(a) that the evidence was discovered after trial;
(b) that said evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the trial even with the exercise of reasonable
diligence;
(c) that it is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative or impeaching; and
(d) that the evidence is of such weight that, if admitted, it would probably change the judgment. It is essential that the
offering party exercised reasonable diligence in seeking to locate the evidence before or during trial but nonetheless
failed to secure it.
A new trial may not be had on the basis of evidence which was available during trial but was not presented due to its
negligence.
PARTIES:
Petitioner Napoleon D. Senit (Senit)
Respondent People of the Philippines

FACTS:
May 30, 2001 Senit was charged petitioner with Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Multiple Serious Physical Injuries and
Damage to Property.
Allegedly, Senit, driving a Super 5 bus, was coming from Malaybalay City headed towards Valencia City
(West bound). Meanwhile, complainant Toor Sr. was driving a Toyota pickup from Valencia City (East
bound) with his wife, son, and yaya. Complainant was turning left and as he was coming to the center
of the highway, the Super 5 bus driven by Senit suddenly overtook a big truck from the right side. The
bus crashed into the right side of private complainant’s pickup at a right angle. Toor Sr. and the
passengers were injured and the pickup was damaged.

June 21, 2001 Upon arraignment, Senit, with the assistance of his counsel, pleaded not guilty.
Trial ensued. However, after the initial presentation of evidence for the petitioner, he resigned from his
employment and transferred residence. His whereabouts allegedly became unknown so he was not presented
as a witness by his counsel.
April 26, 2006 The RTC rendered its Decision in absentia convicting the petitioner of the crime charged.
August 4, 2006 RTC issued an order for the arrest of the petitioner along with the Promulgation of the decision.
Senit filed a motion for new trial via registered mail on the ground that:
(1) errors of law or irregularities were committed during trial, prejudicial to his substantial rights;
(2) he was not able to present evidence during trial because he was not notified of the schedule; and
(3) he mistakenly believed that the case against him has been dismissed as the complainant purportedly
 left the country.

Sept. 22, 2006 The public prosecutor opposed the motion for new trial filed by the petitioner.
Oct. 26, 2006 The lower court denied the motion for new trial. It held that notices have been duly served the parties.
Nov. 20, 2009 CA affirmed the decision of the RTC. Motion for reconsideration was likewise denied.
ISSUE/S:
1. WON the RTC and the CA erred in denying the motion for new trial or to reopen the same in order to allow the
petitioner to present evidence on his behalf. (NO)

Petitioner’s argument:
Senit relied on Rule 121, Section 2(a) of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Sec. 2. Grounds for a new trial.—The Court shall grant a new trial on any of the following grounds:
(a) That errors of law or irregularities prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused have been committed during the
trial
xxx
He that there was an error of law or irregularities committed when the RTC promulgated a decision in absentia and
deemed that he had waived his right to present evidence resulting to denial of due process, a one-sided decision by the
RTC, and a strict and rigid application of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure against him.
HOLDING/RATIO:
No, the RTC and CA did not err in denying the motion for new trial.

First, no substantial right of the accused was prejudice during trial.

Trial in absentia is authorized under Section 14(2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution which provides that after
arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified
and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.

Second, there is no legal basis for the grant of the motion for new trial.
A motion for new trial based on newly-discovered evidence may be granted only if the following requisites are met:
(a) that the evidence was discovered after trial;
(b) that said evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the trial even with the exercise of
reasonable diligence;
(c) that it is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative or impeaching; and
(d) that the evidence is of such weight that, if admit ted, it would probably change the judgment. It is
essential that the offering party exercised reasonable diligence in seeking to locate the evidence before or
during trial but nonetheless failed to secure it.
However, a new trial may not be had on the basis of evidence which was available during trial but was not presented
due to its negligence.
The Court finds no reason to waive the procedural rules in order to grant the motion for new trial of the petitioner.
Senit was not in any way deprived of his substantive and constitutional right to due process as he had previous notice
of the criminal case filed against him. SC noted that the petitioner had been arraigned already, thus the court had
acquired jurisdiction over him. In fact, there was already initial presentation of evidence for the defense when his
whereabouts became unknown.
He was given the opportunity to present evidence in his defense. The petitioner he was duly accorded all the
opportunities to be heard and to present evidence to substantiate his defense, but he forfeited this right, through his
own negligence, by not appearing in court at the scheduled hearings. He wasted his opportunity to be heard by not
being diligent enough to ask about the status of the criminal case against him and inform his counsel of his
whereabouts.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. Accordingly, the Decision dated November 20, 2009 and the Resolution dated June 17,
2010 of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CR No. 00390-MIN are AFFIRMED.